COLUMBIA — South Carolina's poor are being jailed by some municipal courts without being provided defense lawyers or even told they have a right to them, alleges a federal, class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The action comes after years of debate over the issue that has reached the Statehouse and the South Carolina Supreme Court.

“Here I was in front of a judge who could send me to jail, and I had no lawyer and didn’t know how to defend myself. It was terrifying,” said Tina Bairefoot, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who couldn’t afford an attorney.

According to the ACLU, she was charged in Beaufort County with shoplifting, and the municipal court prosecuted and convicted her without a lawyer. Bairefoot was sentenced to 30 days in jail, and was deprived of her medication for the first week, according to the suit.

When she attempted to tell the judge about evidence she had, the judge told her to go sit down and that he was sentencing her to 30 days, according to the lawsuit.

"Stop stealing," he told her, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of Bairefoot and two other plaintiffs who say they were jailed without representation names the city of Beaufort and the town of Bluffton as defendants.

"Bluffton municipal judges have been trained to inform defendants they have a right to an attorney and if they can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided for them," the town of Bluffton said in an emailed statement from spokeswoman Debbie Szpanka. "The Town of Bluffton has budgeted for and has an active contract with a private attorney to provide public defender services."

The statement said the town took that action when it was told by the Beaufort County Public Defender’s Office that the office would stop providing services in municipal courts. The town said it uses federal poverty guidelines to determine if defendants are qualified for public defenders.

Officials for the city of Beaufort could not be reached for comment.

According to the ACLU, 212 municipalities in the state have chosen to operate courts. Such courts are not established by the constitution but were set up by the municipalities to try misdemeanor cases, mostly traffic offenses and violations of town ordinances, but also simple crimes such as shoplifting.

Collectively, the municipalities generated more than $20 million per year for municipal coffers in 2013, according to a memo by the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense.

While the municipalities staff the courts with judges, clerks and prosecutors, they historically have not provided public defenders. In fact, prior to lawmakers issuing a proviso in the 2015-16 fiscal year budget, only four of the courts had arranged for public defenders, according to the commission. After that proviso, which directed municipalities operating courts to provide funds for indigent defendants, 74 have arranged for public defenders, the commission says.

Some other municipalities have provided for indigent defense by hiring lawyers, according to officials who had no exact current numbers.

Rep. Mike Pitts, a Laurens Republican who led efforts in the House to resolve the issue, said Beaufort and Bluffton brought the issue to lawmakers arguing that since the state took fees out of municipal court, it should pay for public defenders.

But he said the state already has its hands full paying for indigent representation in constitutional courts such as general sessions and cannot afford to pay for attorneys in municipal courts.

Pitts said the municipalities are more than willing to provide judges, clerks and prosecutors.

"They don't want to provide the indigent defense and the reason is very simple: All of the others are revenue producers," he said. "Indigent defense is an expenditure and they don't want to pay that."

He estimated that most municipalities, perhaps 80 percent, have arranged either to hire attorneys to defend the indigent or have contracted with the Commission on Indigent Defense.

The lawsuit alleges that "upon information and belief," most municipalities do not provide counsel for poor defendants.

“Thousands of South Carolinians are shoved through the municipal court process without attorneys, their chances of a fair hearing slim to none," said Susan Dunn, legal director of ACLU of South Carolina. "These courts have enormous power over people’s lives, and they abuse it, sending people to jail after legal proceedings in which they had no lawyer. The consequences of incarceration can be severe for people and their families, their jobs, and their futures.”

Beaufort County records indicate that one out of each six people jailed in that county are there because of mujnicipal court charges only and none were represented by public defenders, according to the suit.

Among the plaintiffs in the suit is Nathan Lee Fox, 31, of Mauldin, who according to the suit was tried for five traffic-related charges in February in Beaufort Municipal Court. He had no lawyer. The charges, according to the suit, included speeding not more than 10 miles per hour above the limit, which under state law does not provide for jail time. He pleaded guilty, according to the suit, and was sentenced to 10 days for each offense for a total of 50 days in jail, during which time "his health declined significantly."

"Mr. Fox’s wrongful incarceration caused him physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of income and earning capacity," the suit alleges. "Mr. Fox never spoke to a lawyer during his entire case."

The third plaintiff is Dae’Quandrea Trevell Nelson, who was charged with disturbing the schools and assault and battery third degree, his first criminal case, according to the suit.

He was tried in Bluffton Municipal Court, not advised of his right to counsel and convicted, according to the lawsuit. A judge sentenced him to two, concurrent 30-day terms, according to the suit, and he served 14 days before his release.

"As a result of this case, Mr. Nelson lost his job and the opportunity for a college football scholarship," the lawsuit states. "Mr. Nelson’s wrongful incarceration caused him physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of income and earning capacity. Mr. Nelson never spoke to a lawyer during his entire case."

According to the lawsuit, in the 2015-16 fiscal year, at least 427,273 cases were filed in municipal courts statewide, of which 81,344 were criminal, 6,695 DUI, 321,892 traffic, and 17,342 ordinance violations. Some municipalities did not report, according to the suit, so the total numbers could be higher.

Those numbers are far higher than the caseloads reported for General Sessions Court, according to the suit, and equal one municipal court case for every nine adults in South Carolina.

"Most of these defendants – potentially thousands – are incarcerated in local jails every year, while some serve their unlawful sentences in state prison," the lawsuit states. "If South Carolina municipalities choose to create municipal courts, they have no choice but to comply with the Constitution."

Some sentences run consecutively, according to the suit. Because local jails only hold defendants with sentences of up to 90 days, according to the suit, those with multiple convictions that total more than 90 days are transferred to a state prison.

Between January 2015 and March 2017, more than 200 people were sent to state prisons on municipal court charges only, according to the suit.

South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Don Beatty weighed in on the issue last month, according to the suit, issuing a memo to magistrates and municipal judges.

“[A]ll defendants facing criminal charges in your courts that carry the possibility of imprisonment must be informed of their right to counsel and, if indigent, their right to court-appointed counsel prior to proceeding with trial," he wrote, according to the suit.

Beatty was out of town and unavailable for comment on Thursday, according to his office.

Two national reports in 2016 and this year have found problems in the state's municipal courts, including instances where judges have failed to advise criminal defendants of their constitutional rights.

Also joining in the suit was the ACLU of South Carolina and the law firm of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.

“South Carolina’s Constitution makes it optional for a city or town to establish a municipal court," said Stuart Andrews, a partner in Nelson Mullins. "Providing public defenders isn’t optional. When a city or town chooses to have a municipal court, they must run it fair and square. Instead, we have courts that routinely put poor defendants at an insurmountable disadvantage by denying them lawyers."

The suit is requesting the court designate the case as a class-action lawsuit and that unspecified damages for the plaintiffs, legal costs and attorneys fees be awarded.